We're not all going to agree on "morality" and "culture" (and more things, such as what it means to be XYZ). They mean different things to different people. Small groups would likely be more in agreement within themselves on these topics than larger groups. I'd rather not have a majority opinion be "binding" on everyone, especially with opinions and ideas that change in a manner not unlike the latest fashions and fads. There may be many different majority beliefs and morals and with a large enough group, you'll likely always be a part of the majority for a bunch of beliefs/opinions and in the minority for a bunch of others. How important is it that the whole group should genuflect to the majority opinion? The person who finds this important should recognize that by that same measure, they'll have to genuflect to the majority opinions for which they're in the minority camp. So I'd love for people to be open, tolerant and accepting so that we can each have our views and ways of life. Hopefully the limits to what is ok does not come from the same changing bucket as our "morals" do, and that the constitution enough. It would be really nice if people (in general, not this list) could stick to worrying more about their lives than "telling" others how they should live.
-- Chirayu. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The real issue (to me, at least) is "what kind of society do you want > to live in?" One where any random goon's _current_, _public_ > interpretation of "morality" and "culture" is what one has to > genuflect before? In this context (there's that word again!) crab's > comment about it being quite possible to protest the destruction of a > lousy painting has resonance. > > That's not a rhetorical question (or, not _just_ a rhetorical > question). Some responses appreciated. > > Udhay > > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) >
